0
quade

You have to have a license for a dog, why not for being a parent?

Recommended Posts

Guest
Quote

>No one would be making these complaints if the girls were black, and
>singing songs about killing Whitey.

There are black performers who sing about killing whitey, and they do get a lot of complaints. Check out:

http://www.amren.com/rap1.htm

One song that they complain about includes the lyrics "Niggas in the church say kill whitey all night long . . ."



I don't approve of what the parents are doing. I think it's shameful.

However, AmRen is the exception, not the rule. I firmly believe that if these girls were black, the patronizing entertainment-establishment liberals would being cooing over them and signing them up to record contracts.

mh

.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I firmly believe that if these girls were black, the patronizing
> entertainment-establishment liberals would being cooing over them
> and signing them up to record contracts.

And with these women, the patronizing entertainment establishment _is_ cooing over them and signing them up to record contracts. In this case, Erich Gliebe of Prussian Blue, who runs hate music festivals. He's also signed Blue-Eyed Devils, Angry Aryans and Max Resist.

Time to realize that entertainment companies don't worship any ideology, they worship the almighty dollar. If someone wrote a song that repeated "This song sucks!" 100 times and it made money, they'd be falling all over themselves to sign it. Same with one that said "Praise Be to Bush" or "Bush is a Dopy Cowboy." Then they'd make up some nonsense about how they were supporting the troops, or free speech, or something. And they'd spout that all the way to the bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I firmly believe that if these girls were black, the patronizing entertainment-establishment liberals would being cooing over them and signing them up to record contracts.



I can think of three major labels who wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole; however, if they really sought out getting signed, they'd get picked up by somebody.

This has less to do with the aggregation of the "patronizing entertainment-establishment liberals" and much more to do with dickheads who seek to make money at the expense of anything (or anyone) else.

You'll find those types in every political party, religion, and geographic area, so I think it would be more accurate to just refer to them as Dickheads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Quote

>I firmly believe that if these girls were black, the patronizing
> entertainment-establishment liberals would being cooing over them
> and signing them up to record contracts.

And with these women, the patronizing entertainment establishment _is_ cooing over them and signing them up to record contracts. In this case, Erich Gliebe of Prussian Blue, who runs hate music festivals. He's also signed Blue-Eyed Devils, Angry Aryans and Max Resist.

Time to realize that entertainment companies don't worship any ideology, they worship the almighty dollar. If someone wrote a song that repeated "This song sucks!" 100 times and it made money, they'd be falling all over themselves to sign it. Same with one that said "Praise Be to Bush" or "Bush is a Dopy Cowboy." Then they'd make up some nonsense about how they were supporting the troops, or free speech, or something. And they'd spout that all the way to the bank.



If the girls were black, a REAL label would be signing them, and their videos would be on MTV.

mh

.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Quote

Quote

I firmly believe that if these girls were black, the patronizing entertainment-establishment liberals would being cooing over them and signing them up to record contracts.



I can think of three major labels who wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole; however, if they really sought out getting signed, they'd get picked up by somebody.

This has less to do with the aggregation of the "patronizing entertainment-establishment liberals" and much more to do with dickheads who seek to make money at the expense of anything (or anyone) else.

You'll find those types in every political party, religion, and geographic area, so I think it would be more accurate to just refer to them as Dickheads.



True. Follow the money.

However, white folks aren't allowed to express anything positive about their race and culture in public (only collective guilt and shame over racism and slavery [as though whites were the only people who've ever done such things in history]) are allowed. I think that arrested behavior like this is a reactionary means of repudiating that kind of thinking. However, I believe there are less crass means than this. Like I said, it's shameful.

Personally, I think the whole thing is silly. The First Amendment basically means that people like these foolish WAR (White Aryan Resistance) types have a right to be incredibly stupid in public, and they're being duly ridiculed - that comes with the territory); it's just the blatant color-blind hypocrisy I'm annoyed about.

Edit to add: and because these people are white, they are open to vicious, even brutal attacks. But if they were black, everyone would hesitate to say anything even modestly critical for fear of immedaitely being labeled a racist, and have the Three Stooges (Jackson, Mason Maddox) camped on their front doorstep. And that is the basis of my objection. In fact it's my only objection. Let these people be as stupid as they want; the best thing the rest of us can do is IGNORE THEM. They *will* go away.

.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, IMO, they can't sing. They've got samples on their website. They sound like they've got about as much talent as your average karaoke bar customer. There's no real sense of rhythm or timing, no harmony, just both girls singing the melody, and, at least in the two samples I heard. They sound like kids, and kids don't usually get on record labels unless they've got some amazing talent. These two don't have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Quote

And, IMO, they can't sing. They've got samples on their website. They sound like they've got about as much talent as your average karaoke bar customer. There's no real sense of rhythm or timing, no harmony, just both girls singing the melody, and, at least in the two samples I heard. They sound like kids, and kids don't usually get on record labels unless they've got some amazing talent. These two don't have it.



I wouldn't even bother paying them any attention at all. I do not approve of the content, but lack of talent is even less forgiveable than controversial content. :D:SB|

mh

.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nope. Not because they're white or black, or because their message is good or bad, but because they don't make enough money



And the fact they can't sing for shit. Then again, there's more evil in the charts than in an Al Qaeda suggestion box.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ever hear of Beanie Sigel? Just got acquitted of murder. I've read at least a dozen articles in the past month in admittedly liberal/alternative newspapers that criticize his lyrics glorifying gangbanging and drug dealing.

But I guess you wouldn't want to read that stuff, it would ruin your false assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Freedom is one thing im all for, but .....



That's the saddest thing I've read in a long time.

But a lot of others have already responded more eloquently to your post than I can.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing i have an intolerance for is intolerance. I only hate people that hate people etc etc blah blah. Yeah yeah i know how the argument goes, but my kids will not be taught to hate one particular race. I think those that are should not be allowed them in the first place. Why should i be allowed children? Because i won't be preaching them hate, but rather tolerance of other races. Should they tolerate those who preach and spread hate? I don't think so, and i also don't think that's an oxymoron because some people should simply not be tolerated when their actions affect the lives of innocent people around them, be they victims of suicide bombers, or those who endure rascism.



Sounds like you'd like to beat the crap out of violent people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Freedom is one thing im all for, but .....



That's the saddest thing I've read in a long time.

But a lot of others have already responded more eloquently to your post than I can.



You think it's sad that if someone abuses their personal freedom they should lose some of that priviledge? :S

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote




The only thing i have an intolerance for is intolerance. I only hate people that hate people etc etc blah blah. Yeah yeah i know how the argument goes, but my kids will not be taught to hate one particular race. I think those that are should not be allowed them in the first place. Why should i be allowed children? Because i won't be preaching them hate, but rather tolerance of other races. Should they tolerate those who preach and spread hate? I don't think so, and i also don't think that's an oxymoron because some people should simply not be tolerated when their actions affect the lives of innocent people around them, be they victims of suicide bombers, or those who endure rascism.



Sounds like you'd like to beat the crap out of violent people?



I'm not a violent person so i'm not sure where that came from - but if you are asking if i think violent people should be slapped on the wrist and not have their personal freedoms curtailed, then no, i don't believe that they should be allowed the same freedoms as others.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Freedom is one thing im all for, but .....



That's the saddest thing I've read in a long time.

But a lot of others have already responded more eloquently to your post than I can.



You think it's sad that if someone abuses their personal freedom they should lose some of that priviledge? :S



That's an odd statement as they aren't abusing their freedoms, they are just exercising their freedoms in a really stupid and hateful way. It happens all the time.

I was commenting on your some pigs are more equal than other pigs attitude. I guess if you get to decide what is acceptable in the world and what isn't then the world would be a perfect place? Freedom is ok, but only freedom as defined by Newbie's criteria. What next, freedom of speech is ok unless they say things that you disagree with? We have a lot of that today too. It's easy to agree with the concept - it's much harder to support real freedom when you find out it isn't always just what you want. How strong are your convictions when it mean protecting the rights of others you might find despicable? Then turn right around and use your freedoms to make the opposing position known and public.

Well, let's just slap the armbands on right now and start telling people how they have to think (either party will give you a platform depending on your focus). Let me know how that goes.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Freedom is one thing im all for, but .....



That's the saddest thing I've read in a long time.

But a lot of others have already responded more eloquently to your post than I can.



You think it's sad that if someone abuses their personal freedom they should lose some of that priviledge? :S



That's an odd statement as they aren't abusing their freedoms, they are just exercising their freedoms in a really stupid and hateful way. It happens all the time.

I was commenting on your some pigs are more equal than other pigs attitude. I guess if you get to decide what is acceptable in the world and what isn't then the world would be a perfect place? Freedom is ok, but only freedom as defined by Newbie's criteria. What next, freedom of speech is ok unless they say things that you disagree with? We have a lot of that today too. It's easy to agree with the concept - it's much harder to support real freedom when you find out it isn't always just what you want. How strong are your convictions when it mean protecting the rights of others you might find despicable? Then turn right around and use your freedoms to make the opposing position known and public.

Well, let's just slap the armbands on right now and start telling people how they have to think (either party will give you a platform depending on your focus). Let me know how that goes.



In an ideal world, all pigs are created equal. No one is - or should be - born above others - we should all have the same levels of freedom. I don't think i'm above anyone, all i'm saying is, let's all be free to enjoy life as much as one another - until such a time when my or your or anyone's behaviour as a result of that freedom affects the lives of others in a detrimental way. Teaching your kids to hate other races is consistent with freedom of speech, but likewise consistent with pretty poor parenting. I personally don't think you should be allowed to teach your children to hate, it's detrimental to their development and their lives as a whole, but that's just my take on it, i could of course be totally wrong.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You think it's sad that if someone abuses their personal freedom they should lose some of that priviledge? :S



You haven't figured out yet that defining abuse of personal freedom equals no freedom.

And your definition was so far off base that it defies a reasonable conversation.

1st Amendment- READ IT. You're allowed to think you're better than other races. Even allowed to say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You think it's sad that if someone abuses their personal freedom they should lose some of that priviledge? :S



You haven't figured out yet that defining abuse of personal freedom equals no freedom.

And your definition was so far off base that it defies a reasonable conversation.

1st Amendment- READ IT. You're allowed to think you're better than other races. Even allowed to say it.



First off, how does the 1st Amendment apply to the 4+ billion people it doesn't have any relevance to?

Secondly, if you curb peoples personal freedoms is that not stating they do HAVE personal freedom to begin with? Unlike others here, i do not see the correlation between "behave as you want, you are free to do so, come what may to other members of society" and a very "free" way of life for responsible members of society.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>First off, how does the 1st Amendment apply to the 4+ billion people
>it doesn't have any relevance to?

We invade countries and kill people by the thousands with the (stated) reason of making them 'free' - so it's quite applicable to many people, people who we either want to have those freedoms, or people we will kill giving that freedom to _other_ people.

>Unlike others here, i do not see the correlation between "behave as
> you want, you are free to do so, come what may to other members
> of society" and a very "free" way of life for responsible members of
> society.

The thing you are missing are laws. No one here is saying do whatever you want. It's not OK to kill someone who annoys you. Many people _are_ saying that you are free to do anything that's not illegal. Teach your children to love each other, teach your children they are all going to hell unless they join a cult - up to you. I don't think much of people who tell their children they're going to hell, but I am as free to think that as they are free to do that.

People MUST obey laws. People SHOULD treat their children well, but sometimes they don't. The price of freedom is that some people will sometimes do things you don't like. The good part of that equation, though, is that others cannot stop you from doing legal things that THEY don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really should learn more about the constitution before you try and debate these topics.

Quote

First off, how does the 1st Amendment apply to the 4+ billion people it doesn't have any relevance to?



Because it is the enumeration of a basic human right. It applies to everyone in the world. Only gov'ts can take that basic right away from you. Ours chooses not to.

Quote

Unlike others here, i do not see the correlation between "behave as you want, you are free to do so, come what may to other members of society" and a very "free" way of life for responsible members of society.



You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Hating someone doesn't infringe on their rights. Only way you act on that hatred to discriminate against them, does it come into play. But talking about hating them, teaching your children to hate them, doesn't infringe on their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone understands your frustration and relates to it here. It's a position that we'd all like to take, but is wrong in the application - despite good intentions. I shouldn't have implied you as having a "better than" attitude, it was intended to highlight that others in history have taken your position and made it part of governments in the past - with disastrous consequences.

nice position, though, but one which has been used many times before - making decisions "for the good of the stupid people" is the very essense of an aristocracy, we don't want that model (only the fringes of the left and the right really think this is the right thing to do)

so we end up taking the bad to get the good of what freedom is

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0